Re: DNS: Suggested ADNA Board Members

Re: DNS: Suggested ADNA Board Members

From: Michael O'Reilly <michael§>
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 11:13:56 +0800
In message <;>, Adam Todd
[ munched ]
> After this list has been scrutinised by ADNA, I'll forward the next list
> and so on, until such time as ADNA has an equal balance of Internet and NON
> Internet people on the Board.

I haven't commented until now, but I'm finally disgusted enough to
stick my oar in.

Mr Todd: You're a pompous git. Worse, you're an time wasting willfully
ignorant pompous git.

This list of people is worse than useless.

You have not:
	a) given any reason why they would be interested.
	b) given any cause as to their qualifications.
	c) given any indication that they would be capable of
		understanding the issues in a useful time period.
	d) done anything other than grandstand and waste time.
> The goal is to find people who have the ability to clealry show they are
> not in any way conflicting with the interests of a Company or organisaiton
> that has interests in the Development or Profits of Internet Commerce.

Wilfully ignorant. Why not just wander down to your local CES and pick
the first 5 people you see at random. Will the people you get be
different in any meaningful way? Have you done anything other than
throw darts at a phone book?

The object is not to make sure that half the board is ignorant of the
issues, and has no interest in learning about them. The goal is a
useful framework for the management of the .au space. Could you
explain exactly how your actions thus far advance the goal?

As far as I can see, you haven't even managed to get the point of
understanding what a conflict of interest actually _is_. Owning a
for-profit company does not a conflict of interest automatically
make. Especially when the interests of the company, and the interests
of ADNA co-incide in so many ways.
> I can not provide any details as to whether these people will have time, or
> even accept a phone call from an ADNA member to discuss these matters.
> My name is not to be used as a referance at during contact as I have
> not

Somehow, I'm not suprised. Not too big on responsibility are
you? Actually, not too big on anything other than grandstanding and

Received on Mon Mar 02 1998 - 14:48:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:03 UTC